Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How to fix the design defects of the Spitfire airplane of WW-II.
Shooter    5/26/2005 5:12:16 PM
Given 20-20 hind sight, It is easy to see where R.M. went wrong with the Spitfire! The following list of items is my idea of how they should have done it, IF THEY HAD READ ANY OF THE COMMON TEXTS instead of designing a newer SPAD for the last war! 1. Start with the late Seafire or even better the Martin Baker MB-5! they have contra props and wide track gear. The MB-5 also has a much higher LOS out of the pit forward. This is also one of the Spits larger problems. 2. Change the shape/planform of the wing and eppinage from eliptical to trapiziodal. The eliptical surfaces caused the construction time and cost of the Spitfire to be more than double that of the Mustang and almost as much as the P-38. 3. Reduce the wing cord and thus area by 35-40%! This reduction in surface aria will increase the cruising speed substantialy! This is probably the single biggest defect in the design. The change in aspect ratio will also help fuel ecconomy! 4. To compensate for the increased landing and take off speeds install triple slotted fowler flaps with a long hinge extension. This gives a huge increase in wing area and changes the camber for supirior "DOG FIGHT" ability, should you ever need it! ( because the pilot really screwed up!) At full extension and deflection, they would reduce the landing speed by 11~13MPH? (Slip Stick calcs!) 5. Remove the wing mounted radiators and install a body duct like the P-51 or MB-5! This one change would add ~35MPH to the plane? 6. use the single stage griphon engine and install a "Turbo-charger" like the P-38 and Most American Bombers had. This would increase power and save weight, both significant contributers to performance. 7. Remove the guns from the wings! This would lower the polar moment of rotation and give the plane snappier rates of roll! It also makes room for "wet wings" with much more fuel. A chronic Spit problem. It also fixes the Spit's gunnery problem of designed in dispersion! 8. Install the Gun(s) in the nose! Either fireing threw the prop boss/hub or on either side 180 degrees either side of the prop CL. This fixes the afore mentioned dispersion problem. One bigger gun between the cilinder banks or upto four 20MMs beside the engine or both, depending on what your mission needs were! 9. Make a new gun based on the American 28MM or 1.1" Naval AA ammo! This shell was particuarly destructive, had a very high MV and BC and was all ready in service. A re-engineered copy of the existing gun to reduce weight and increase RoF is a faily simple task. Pay the Americans for it if British spring technology is not up to the task! it also frees up much needed production capasity for other things. 10. Design a new drawn steel "Mine" shell for the above gun! Spend the money to load it with RDX instead of the TNT used for the first 4/5s of the war. 11. Pay North American or Lockheed to design it for you, since the Supermarine staff was to tied up fixing the origional spitfire design to get it done any time soon. Did I miss anything?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
larryjcr    RE: Gun cameras   3/4/2006 9:09:35 PM
Note the wishful thinking in Luft BoB claims. Hardly anybody shot down a Hurricane -- by the Luft reports. Same thing in North Africa, as I've mentioned before. Claims for Curtiss's were often made when the a/c attacked were actually Hurricanes as the Germans considered the 'hawks to be better a/c. Again, I haven't come up with the raw numbers for the daylight bomber and escort campaigne, but have only studied a few specific actions, and found that the fighter claims seem to be inflated by about 30-60% after deductions are made for the grossly inflated claims by bomber gunners. The numbers I've seen for the RAF over the coast in '41 and over NW Australia in '43 were over claims by 200-600%.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE: Gun cameras   3/4/2006 11:38:26 PM
What makes you think that Pierre Clostermann's belief that RAF standards were higher than USAAF untrue? I should probably add that he was refering to the May 1944 period. The figure the RAF used for planning was to take half the claims of the USAAF fighters and a third from the bombers. Luftwaffe claims often took up to a year to be confirmed, yet they still grossly over estimated the number they shot down. That is over the entire period of the war, not just the BoB.
 
Quote    Reply

MustangFlyer    RE: Tactics   3/5/2006 7:06:05 AM
We're still arguing about this .. why? Do some reading. Read Galland for G*ds sake. He made it quite clear. The 41/42 period in France could be described as a "probing attack". As the RAF worked out the enemy's capabilities, within their technical limitations They both learned from this period. The RAF learned and decided that they needed better performing planes (e.g Mosquitos, Typhoons, Griffon engined Spits, etc)and that bombers had to (repeat had to) fly at night. (Unfortunately later they learned how good the Germans could be at night fighter defense as well). So that period was a draw in the ETO. Of course in the NATO many things were happening. One thing that is very important to remember that the British were not prepared to (and couldn't) accept the losses that a war of attrition implied. The Germans were (to their detriment). So was the US and the USSR. So the UK always tried to work around the edges, sometimes sucessfully, sometimes not.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE: Gun cameras   3/5/2006 7:53:44 AM
no larry you missunderstood, the pre mkiv spits all used the same wing and it was the positioning of thew camera that was at fault, now you say there was no rush to refit the camera, well there wouldnt be would there as it required the fitting of a new wing! when the new winf did come into service in the mkix from then on all spits had camera guns
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE: Gun cameras   3/5/2006 10:32:41 AM
cant comment on the aussie bits, but as far as i can remember the spit didnt arrive in the pto untill 43. most of the defensive work was done by raaf wasnt it? maybe a aussie can confirm this! can you specific about incidents as quite often the ones that were exceptional seem to be remembered not the run of the mill operations. One thing, why do you refer to bomber escort missions for the raf in 41... heavy bomber escort was less than 5% of fighter operations, and normally nearly 1%, so any data based on escort missions is decidedly biased dont you think. remember daylight escort was forced on the raf because the USAAF hadnt the resources or the equipment, that the RAF had a long range fighter was a problem but one created by USAAF doctrin, you can ask just as validly why didnt the USAAF didnt have a longrange nightfighter in 1941?
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: Gun cameras   3/5/2006 10:47:40 AM
To AussieEngineer: Didn't someone just get finished saying that the standards were exactly the same for both RAF and USAAF units?? And if the RAF wanted to get it right, they should have taken about three-quarters of USAAF fighter claims and one tenth of the bomber claims. AS to the time factor, one would then wonder what the Luft was doing for a year.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: Tactics   3/5/2006 10:50:13 AM
Largely true although I would suggest that the RAF learned that they couldn't avoid serious losses in daylight with the escort tactics they were using -- which were even worse than the late BoB German tactics.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: Gun cameras   3/5/2006 10:55:26 AM
No, the RAF in '41 carried out a whole series of daylight bomber raids on targets in France that were withing Spitfire range, using Wellingtons and Stirlings, for the purposed of drawing the Luftwaffe units into combat. This was part of a campaigne to gain air superiority over coastal France & the Low Countries. It was a failure due to the fact that RAF escort tactics were very poor, and Luftwaffe interception tactics were much better. At the time the a/c were the same as the BoB. When the Bf109F came in, and shortly the FW190, things got radiacally worse.
 
Quote    Reply

larryjcr    RE: Gun cameras   3/5/2006 10:56:49 AM
Yes, the NW Australia ops involved Spitfire MkVs vs Zeros and Ki43s escorting bombers against targets in that area in the Spring of '43.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise    RE: Gun cameras   3/5/2006 12:31:06 PM
yes the raf did a seris of bombing raids, however these were few compaired to the fighter/fighter bomber sweeps undertaken. it is worthly of note that a lot of the tactics developed by the raf at this time were used by the USAAF! tactics can only be developed by doing, the US had no magic "escort" strategy - but the mistakes made by the RAF made it easlier for the US to get it right! or are you like shooter and believe that the US never got help from outside or never made mistakes?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics